Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 741

control, N = 371

treatment, N = 371

p-value2

age

74

50.70 ± 12.55 (25 - 74)

50.31 ± 13.37 (25 - 74)

51.09 ± 11.84 (31 - 72)

0.791

gender

74

0.802

f

51 (69%)

25 (68%)

26 (70%)

m

23 (31%)

12 (32%)

11 (30%)

occupation

74

0.884

day_training

2 (2.7%)

2 (5.4%)

0 (0%)

full_time

7 (9.5%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.1%)

homemaker

6 (8.1%)

3 (8.1%)

3 (8.1%)

other

2 (2.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (5.4%)

part_time

14 (19%)

7 (19%)

7 (19%)

retired

15 (20%)

7 (19%)

8 (22%)

self_employ

3 (4.1%)

1 (2.7%)

2 (5.4%)

student

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.7%)

t_and_e

2 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

unemploy

22 (30%)

12 (32%)

10 (27%)

marital

74

0.769

cohabitation

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.7%)

divore

9 (12%)

6 (16%)

3 (8.1%)

married

16 (22%)

7 (19%)

9 (24%)

none

42 (57%)

21 (57%)

21 (57%)

seperation

3 (4.1%)

2 (5.4%)

1 (2.7%)

widow

3 (4.1%)

1 (2.7%)

2 (5.4%)

edu

74

0.954

bachelor

22 (30%)

9 (24%)

13 (35%)

diploma

13 (18%)

8 (22%)

5 (14%)

hd_ad

3 (4.1%)

2 (5.4%)

1 (2.7%)

postgraduate

6 (8.1%)

3 (8.1%)

3 (8.1%)

primary

5 (6.8%)

2 (5.4%)

3 (8.1%)

secondary_1_3

8 (11%)

4 (11%)

4 (11%)

secondary_4_5

15 (20%)

8 (22%)

7 (19%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

fam_income

74

0.932

10001_12000

4 (5.4%)

1 (2.7%)

3 (8.1%)

12001_14000

4 (5.4%)

2 (5.4%)

2 (5.4%)

14001_16000

5 (6.8%)

2 (5.4%)

3 (8.1%)

16001_18000

2 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

18001_20000

4 (5.4%)

3 (8.1%)

1 (2.7%)

20001_above

12 (16%)

6 (16%)

6 (16%)

2001_4000

10 (14%)

7 (19%)

3 (8.1%)

4001_6000

10 (14%)

4 (11%)

6 (16%)

6001_8000

7 (9.5%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.1%)

8001_10000

7 (9.5%)

3 (8.1%)

4 (11%)

below_2000

9 (12%)

4 (11%)

5 (14%)

medication

74

64 (86%)

33 (89%)

31 (84%)

0.496

onset_duration

74

15.35 ± 11.44 (0 - 56)

16.67 ± 12.76 (1 - 56)

14.03 ± 9.94 (0 - 35)

0.324

onset_age

74

35.35 ± 14.02 (14 - 64)

33.64 ± 13.39 (14 - 58)

37.06 ± 14.60 (15 - 64)

0.297

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 741

control, N = 371

treatment, N = 371

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

74

3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.11 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)

3.16 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)

0.850

recovery_stage_b

74

18.01 ± 2.60 (9 - 23)

17.95 ± 2.66 (9 - 23)

18.08 ± 2.59 (13 - 23)

0.825

ras_confidence

74

30.42 ± 4.75 (19 - 43)

29.89 ± 4.19 (19 - 40)

30.95 ± 5.26 (20 - 43)

0.344

ras_willingness

74

12.14 ± 1.96 (7 - 15)

11.92 ± 1.85 (9 - 15)

12.35 ± 2.07 (7 - 15)

0.346

ras_goal

74

17.57 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)

17.49 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)

17.65 ± 3.10 (12 - 24)

0.818

ras_reliance

74

13.18 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)

12.97 ± 2.58 (8 - 18)

13.38 ± 3.03 (8 - 20)

0.537

ras_domination

74

9.99 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)

10.51 ± 2.06 (6 - 15)

9.46 ± 2.42 (3 - 14)

0.048

symptom

74

30.14 ± 9.80 (14 - 56)

31.24 ± 9.60 (14 - 52)

29.03 ± 10.00 (15 - 56)

0.334

slof_work

74

22.80 ± 4.90 (10 - 30)

22.68 ± 4.44 (15 - 30)

22.92 ± 5.39 (10 - 30)

0.833

slof_relationship

74

25.82 ± 6.01 (11 - 35)

25.51 ± 6.17 (13 - 35)

26.14 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)

0.660

satisfaction

74

20.77 ± 6.83 (5 - 32)

19.22 ± 6.44 (5 - 29)

22.32 ± 6.94 (5 - 32)

0.050

mhc_emotional

74

11.20 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

10.70 ± 3.41 (3 - 17)

11.70 ± 4.22 (4 - 18)

0.266

mhc_social

74

14.86 ± 5.47 (6 - 30)

15.16 ± 5.48 (7 - 30)

14.57 ± 5.51 (6 - 26)

0.643

mhc_psychological

74

22.28 ± 6.08 (6 - 36)

21.76 ± 5.69 (10 - 36)

22.81 ± 6.48 (6 - 36)

0.460

resilisnce

74

16.62 ± 4.53 (6 - 27)

16.32 ± 4.38 (6 - 24)

16.92 ± 4.72 (7 - 27)

0.576

social_provision

74

13.73 ± 2.98 (5 - 20)

13.30 ± 2.49 (8 - 20)

14.16 ± 3.37 (5 - 20)

0.214

els_value_living

74

17.28 ± 2.91 (5 - 25)

16.65 ± 2.34 (12 - 22)

17.92 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.060

els_life_fulfill

74

12.82 ± 3.32 (4 - 20)

11.81 ± 3.04 (5 - 17)

13.84 ± 3.31 (4 - 20)

0.008

els

74

30.11 ± 5.61 (9 - 45)

28.46 ± 4.44 (20 - 36)

31.76 ± 6.21 (9 - 45)

0.010

social_connect

74

27.09 ± 9.47 (8 - 48)

27.95 ± 8.31 (8 - 45)

26.24 ± 10.55 (8 - 48)

0.443

shs_agency

74

14.53 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 4.52 (3 - 21)

15.22 ± 5.30 (3 - 24)

0.233

shs_pathway

74

16.62 ± 3.98 (4 - 24)

16.11 ± 3.81 (8 - 24)

17.14 ± 4.14 (4 - 23)

0.270

shs

74

31.15 ± 8.47 (7 - 47)

29.95 ± 7.97 (13 - 45)

32.35 ± 8.89 (7 - 47)

0.224

esteem

74

12.64 ± 1.52 (10 - 18)

12.86 ± 1.55 (10 - 18)

12.41 ± 1.48 (10 - 16)

0.196

mlq_search

74

14.91 ± 3.30 (3 - 21)

14.84 ± 3.09 (6 - 21)

14.97 ± 3.54 (3 - 21)

0.862

mlq_presence

74

13.49 ± 4.08 (3 - 21)

13.41 ± 3.50 (5 - 20)

13.57 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)

0.866

mlq

74

28.39 ± 6.56 (6 - 42)

28.24 ± 5.79 (12 - 40)

28.54 ± 7.32 (6 - 42)

0.847

empower

74

19.54 ± 4.09 (6 - 28)

19.08 ± 3.71 (11 - 24)

20.00 ± 4.43 (6 - 28)

0.337

ismi_resistance

74

14.68 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

14.32 ± 2.21 (11 - 19)

15.03 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

0.266

ismi_discrimation

74

11.26 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)

12.22 ± 2.79 (5 - 18)

10.30 ± 3.31 (5 - 19)

0.009

sss_affective

74

9.92 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

10.43 ± 3.44 (3 - 18)

9.41 ± 4.08 (3 - 18)

0.246

sss_behavior

74

9.51 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)

10.27 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

8.76 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.104

sss_cognitive

74

8.24 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

8.59 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)

7.89 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.449

sss

74

27.68 ± 10.88 (9 - 54)

29.30 ± 10.41 (9 - 54)

26.05 ± 11.23 (9 - 54)

0.202

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.11

0.199

2.72, 3.50

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.054

0.281

-0.497, 0.605

0.848

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.161

0.287

-0.401, 0.724

0.577

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.169

0.410

-0.635, 0.973

0.681

Pseudo R square

0.012

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.439

17.1, 18.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.135

0.620

-1.08, 1.35

0.828

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.383

0.602

-1.56, 0.796

0.527

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.880

0.860

-0.806, 2.57

0.311

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.9

0.821

28.3, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

1.161

-1.22, 3.33

0.367

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.317

0.816

-1.28, 1.92

0.700

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.300

1.168

-1.99, 2.59

0.798

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.328

11.3, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.432

0.464

-0.476, 1.34

0.354

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.631

0.320

-1.26, -0.003

0.055

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.449

0.458

-0.449, 1.35

0.333

Pseudo R square

0.034

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.516

16.5, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.162

0.729

-1.27, 1.59

0.825

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.912

0.551

-1.99, 0.168

0.105

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.49

0.789

-0.061, 3.03

0.066

Pseudo R square

0.025

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.449

12.1, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.405

0.635

-0.840, 1.65

0.525

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.453

0.407

-0.345, 1.25

0.272

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.631

0.583

-0.512, 1.77

0.285

Pseudo R square

0.032

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.5

0.367

9.79, 11.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.05

0.519

-2.07, -0.037

0.045

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.632

0.469

-1.55, 0.288

0.185

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.43

0.671

0.113, 2.74

0.039

Pseudo R square

0.038

symptom

(Intercept)

31.2

1.609

28.1, 34.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.22

2.275

-6.67, 2.24

0.333

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.058

1.182

-2.26, 2.37

0.961

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.667

1.693

-3.98, 2.65

0.695

Pseudo R square

0.016

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.7

0.812

21.1, 24.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.243

1.149

-2.01, 2.49

0.833

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.724

0.619

-1.94, 0.489

0.249

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.595

0.886

-2.33, 1.14

0.506

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.5

0.981

23.6, 27.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.622

1.387

-2.10, 3.34

0.655

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.06

0.898

-2.82, 0.706

0.247

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.604

1.286

-1.92, 3.12

0.641

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.2

1.139

17.0, 21.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.11

1.610

-0.048, 6.26

0.057

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.748

1.181

-1.57, 3.06

0.529

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.26

1.690

-4.57, 2.05

0.461

Pseudo R square

0.038

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.625

9.48, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.00

0.883

-0.731, 2.73

0.261

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.485

0.541

-0.575, 1.54

0.376

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.17

0.774

-2.68, 0.352

0.140

Pseudo R square

0.012

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.2

0.930

13.3, 17.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.595

1.316

-3.17, 1.98

0.652

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.08

0.903

-0.688, 2.85

0.237

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.54

1.293

-4.07, 0.994

0.241

Pseudo R square

0.015

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

1.048

19.7, 23.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

1.482

-1.85, 3.96

0.479

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.643

1.022

-1.36, 2.65

0.532

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.71

1.463

-4.57, 1.16

0.250

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.713

14.9, 17.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.595

1.008

-1.38, 2.57

0.557

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.161

0.719

-1.25, 1.57

0.824

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.364

1.029

-1.65, 2.38

0.725

Pseudo R square

0.009

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.497

12.3, 14.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.865

0.703

-0.514, 2.24

0.222

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.938

0.557

-2.03, 0.153

0.099

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.864

0.796

-0.697, 2.43

0.283

Pseudo R square

0.047

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.477

15.7, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.27

0.674

-0.051, 2.59

0.063

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.276

0.448

-0.603, 1.15

0.542

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.205

0.642

-1.46, 1.05

0.751

Pseudo R square

0.042

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.508

10.8, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.03

0.718

0.620, 3.43

0.006

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.917

0.487

-0.039, 1.87

0.067

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.926

0.698

-2.29, 0.441

0.191

Pseudo R square

0.080

els

(Intercept)

28.5

0.884

26.7, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.30

1.250

0.846, 5.75

0.010

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.17

0.770

-0.342, 2.67

0.137

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.09

1.102

-3.25, 1.07

0.327

Pseudo R square

0.074

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

1.558

24.9, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.70

2.204

-6.02, 2.62

0.442

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.757

1.144

-1.48, 3.00

0.511

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.931

1.637

-4.14, 2.28

0.573

Pseudo R square

0.012

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.813

12.2, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.38

1.149

-0.874, 3.63

0.234

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.290

0.772

-1.22, 1.80

0.709

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.414

1.106

-1.75, 2.58

0.710

Pseudo R square

0.026

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.1

0.651

14.8, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.03

0.920

-0.777, 2.83

0.268

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.372

0.590

-0.785, 1.53

0.532

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.422

0.845

-2.08, 1.23

0.620

Pseudo R square

0.013

shs

(Intercept)

29.9

1.381

27.2, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.41

1.953

-1.42, 6.23

0.222

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.662

1.234

-1.76, 3.08

0.594

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.007

1.767

-3.46, 3.47

0.997

Pseudo R square

0.022

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.234

12.4, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.459

0.331

-1.11, 0.189

0.168

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.155

0.352

-0.534, 0.845

0.661

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.228

0.502

-0.757, 1.21

0.653

Pseudo R square

0.027

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.552

13.8, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.135

0.781

-1.40, 1.67

0.863

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.394

0.661

-1.69, 0.902

0.554

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.383

0.946

-1.47, 2.24

0.687

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.660

12.1, 14.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.162

0.934

-1.67, 1.99

0.863

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.080

0.732

-1.51, 1.35

0.913

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.190

1.047

-1.86, 2.24

0.856

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.098

26.1, 30.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.297

1.552

-2.75, 3.34

0.849

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.474

1.251

-2.93, 1.98

0.706

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.562

1.789

-2.95, 4.07

0.755

Pseudo R square

0.002

empower

(Intercept)

19.1

0.656

17.8, 20.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.919

0.928

-0.899, 2.74

0.325

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.251

0.580

-1.39, 0.887

0.668

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.434

0.831

-2.06, 1.19

0.604

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.418

13.5, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.703

0.591

-0.455, 1.86

0.237

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.168

0.555

-0.919, 1.25

0.764

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.373

0.793

-1.93, 1.18

0.640

Pseudo R square

0.014

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.2

0.513

11.2, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.92

0.726

-3.34, -0.497

0.010

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.509

0.499

-1.49, 0.469

0.314

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.949

0.714

-0.451, 2.35

0.191

Pseudo R square

0.066

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.603

9.25, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.03

0.852

-2.70, 0.643

0.232

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.225

0.504

-0.762, 1.21

0.657

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.08

0.721

-2.50, 0.330

0.140

Pseudo R square

0.041

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.3

0.624

9.05, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.51

0.882

-3.24, 0.216

0.090

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.248

0.618

-1.46, 0.963

0.690

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.434

0.884

-2.17, 1.30

0.626

Pseudo R square

0.050

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.59

0.638

7.34, 9.84

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.703

0.902

-2.47, 1.07

0.438

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.03

0.508

0.031, 2.02

0.050

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.81

0.728

-3.23, -0.380

0.017

Pseudo R square

0.040

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

1.732

25.9, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.24

2.449

-8.04, 1.56

0.189

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.08

1.300

-1.47, 3.62

0.413

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.35

1.862

-7.00, 0.298

0.079

Pseudo R square

0.048

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.72, 3.50], t(107) = 15.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.60], t(107) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.72], t(107) = 0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.97], t(107) = 0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.95 (95% CI [17.09, 18.81], t(107) = 40.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.35], t(107) = 0.22, p = 0.828; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.80], t(107) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.57], t(107) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.89 (95% CI [28.28, 31.50], t(107) = 36.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.33], t(107) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.92], t(107) = 0.39, p = 0.698; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.59], t(107) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.28, 12.56], t(107) = 36.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.34], t(107) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.26, -3.45e-03], t(107) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.63, -1.72e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.35], t(107) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.48, 18.50], t(107) = 33.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.59], t(107) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.17], t(107) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.06, 3.03], t(107) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.96])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.09, 13.85], t(107) = 28.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.65], t(107) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.25], t(107) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.77], t(107) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.79, 11.23], t(107) = 28.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.07, -0.04], t(107) = -2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.29], t(107) = -1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [0.11, 2.74], t(107) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.24 (95% CI [28.09, 34.40], t(107) = 19.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.22, 95% CI [-6.67, 2.24], t(107) = -0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.26, 2.37], t(107) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 5.84e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-3.98, 2.65], t(107) = -0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.68 (95% CI [21.08, 24.27], t(107) = 27.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.49], t(107) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.49], t(107) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.14], t(107) = -0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.51 (95% CI [23.59, 27.44], t(107) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-2.10, 3.34], t(107) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.71], t(107) = -1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.92, 3.12], t(107) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.22 (95% CI [16.98, 21.45], t(107) = 16.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 6.26], t(107) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-6.80e-03, 0.89])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.57, 3.06], t(107) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-4.57, 2.05], t(107) = -0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.70 (95% CI [9.48, 11.93], t(107) = 17.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.73], t(107) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.54], t(107) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.35], t(107) = -1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.34, 16.99], t(107) = 16.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-3.17, 1.98], t(107) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.85], t(107) = 1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-4.07, 0.99], t(107) = -1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.76 (95% CI [19.70, 23.81], t(107) = 20.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.85, 3.96], t(107) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.65], t(107) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-4.57, 1.16], t(107) = -1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.32 (95% CI [14.93, 17.72], t(107) = 22.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.57], t(107) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.57], t(107) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.65, 2.38], t(107) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.30 (95% CI [12.32, 14.27], t(107) = 26.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.24], t(107) = 1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.15], t(107) = -1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.43], t(107) = 1.09, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.65 (95% CI [15.71, 17.58], t(107) = 34.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.59], t(107) = 1.88, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.15], t(107) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.05], t(107) = -0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.81 (95% CI [10.82, 12.81], t(107) = 23.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.62, 3.43], t(107) = 2.82, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [0.19, 1.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.87], t(107) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.44], t(107) = -1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.46 (95% CI [26.73, 30.19], t(107) = 32.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.30, 95% CI [0.85, 5.75], t(107) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.15, 1.03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.67], t(107) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-3.25, 1.07], t(107) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.95 (95% CI [24.89, 31.00], t(107) = 17.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-6.02, 2.62], t(107) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.48, 3.00], t(107) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-4.14, 2.28], t(107) = -0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.24, 15.43], t(107) = 17.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.63], t(107) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.80], t(107) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.75, 2.58], t(107) = 0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.83, 17.38], t(107) = 24.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.83], t(107) = 1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.53], t(107) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.23], t(107) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.95 (95% CI [27.24, 32.65], t(107) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [-1.42, 6.23], t(107) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.08], t(107) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.51e-03, 95% CI [-3.46, 3.47], t(107) = 3.68e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = 7.81e-04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.41, 13.32], t(107) = 54.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.19], t(107) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.84], t(107) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.21], t(107) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.86])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.76, 15.92], t(107) = 26.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.67], t(107) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.90], t(107) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.24], t(107) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.41e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.41 (95% CI [12.11, 14.70], t(107) = 20.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.99], t(107) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.35], t(107) = -0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.86, 2.24], t(107) = 0.18, p = 0.856; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [26.09, 30.39], t(107) = 25.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.75, 3.34], t(107) = 0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.93, 1.98], t(107) = -0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.95, 4.07], t(107) = 0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.80, 20.37], t(107) = 29.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.74], t(107) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.89], t(107) = -0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.19], t(107) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.32 (95% CI [13.51, 15.14], t(107) = 34.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.86], t(107) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.25], t(107) = 0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.18], t(107) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.21, 13.22], t(107) = 23.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.34, -0.50], t(107) = -2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.05, -0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.47], t(107) = -1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.45, 2.35], t(107) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.25, 11.61], t(107) = 17.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.70, 0.64], t(107) = -1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.21], t(107) = 0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-2.50, 0.33], t(107) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.05, 11.49], t(107) = 16.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-3.24, 0.22], t(107) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.96], t(107) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.17, 1.30], t(107) = -0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.59 (95% CI [7.34, 9.84], t(107) = 13.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.07], t(107) = -0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.03, 2.02], t(107) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [8.01e-03, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.23, -0.38], t(107) = -2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.30 (95% CI [25.90, 32.69], t(107) = 16.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.24, 95% CI [-8.04, 1.56], t(107) = -1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.47, 3.62], t(107) = 0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.35, 95% CI [-7.00, 0.30], t(107) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

362.562

370.744

-178.281

356.562

recovery_stage_a

random

6

366.771

383.135

-177.386

354.771

1.791

3

0.617

recovery_stage_b

null

3

538.806

546.988

-266.403

532.806

recovery_stage_b

random

6

543.185

559.549

-265.593

531.185

1.621

3

0.655

ras_confidence

null

3

660.008

668.190

-327.004

654.008

ras_confidence

random

6

664.226

680.590

-326.113

652.226

1.782

3

0.619

ras_willingness

null

3

455.243

463.426

-224.622

449.243

ras_willingness

random

6

455.527

471.892

-221.764

443.527

5.716

3

0.126

ras_goal

null

3

562.681

570.863

-278.340

556.681

ras_goal

random

6

564.130

580.495

-276.065

552.130

4.550

3

0.208

ras_reliance

null

3

524.155

532.338

-259.078

518.155

ras_reliance

random

6

521.433

537.797

-254.716

509.433

8.723

3

0.033

ras_domination

null

3

499.031

507.214

-246.516

493.031

ras_domination

random

6

498.766

515.131

-243.383

486.766

6.265

3

0.099

symptom

null

3

789.808

797.991

-391.904

783.808

symptom

random

6

794.350

810.715

-391.175

782.350

1.458

3

0.692

slof_work

null

3

642.197

650.379

-318.099

636.197

slof_work

random

6

642.602

658.966

-315.301

630.602

5.595

3

0.133

slof_relationship

null

3

694.645

702.828

-344.323

688.645

slof_relationship

random

6

698.638

715.003

-343.319

686.638

2.007

3

0.571

satisfaction

null

3

738.909

747.091

-366.455

732.909

satisfaction

random

6

741.084

757.448

-364.542

729.084

3.826

3

0.281

mhc_emotional

null

3

589.618

597.801

-291.809

583.618

mhc_emotional

random

6

592.621

608.985

-290.310

580.621

2.998

3

0.392

mhc_social

null

3

687.248

695.431

-340.624

681.248

mhc_social

random

6

690.841

707.205

-339.420

678.841

2.408

3

0.492

mhc_psychological

null

3

713.707

721.889

-353.853

707.707

mhc_psychological

random

6

718.070

734.434

-353.035

706.070

1.637

3

0.651

resilisnce

null

3

628.387

636.569

-311.193

622.387

resilisnce

random

6

633.273

649.638

-310.637

621.273

1.113

3

0.774

social_provision

null

3

558.854

567.036

-276.427

552.854

social_provision

random

6

559.103

575.468

-273.552

547.103

5.750

3

0.124

els_value_living

null

3

535.382

543.564

-264.691

529.382

els_value_living

random

6

537.456

553.820

-262.728

525.456

3.926

3

0.270

els_life_fulfill

null

3

557.110

565.292

-275.555

551.110

els_life_fulfill

random

6

553.182

569.546

-270.591

541.182

9.928

3

0.019

els

null

3

673.863

682.045

-333.931

667.863

els

random

6

671.530

687.894

-329.765

659.530

8.333

3

0.040

social_connect

null

3

782.412

790.595

-388.206

776.412

social_connect

random

6

787.084

803.448

-387.542

775.084

1.329

3

0.722

shs_agency

null

3

655.589

663.771

-324.794

649.589

shs_agency

random

6

658.778

675.142

-323.389

646.778

2.811

3

0.422

shs_pathway

null

3

600.669

608.851

-297.335

594.669

shs_pathway

random

6

605.186

621.550

-296.593

593.186

1.483

3

0.686

shs

null

3

770.438

778.620

-382.219

764.438

shs

random

6

774.206

790.570

-381.103

762.206

2.232

3

0.526

esteem

null

3

402.744

410.926

-198.372

396.744

esteem

random

6

405.557

421.921

-196.778

393.557

3.187

3

0.364

mlq_search

null

3

581.579

589.761

-287.789

575.579

mlq_search

random

6

587.087

603.451

-287.543

575.087

0.492

3

0.921

mlq_presence

null

3

616.568

624.750

-305.284

610.568

mlq_presence

random

6

622.468

638.832

-305.234

610.468

0.100

3

0.992

mlq

null

3

733.430

741.612

-363.715

727.430

mlq

random

6

739.169

755.534

-363.585

727.169

0.260

3

0.967

empower

null

3

601.611

609.793

-297.806

595.611

empower

random

6

605.233

621.598

-296.617

593.233

2.378

3

0.498

ismi_resistance

null

3

525.788

533.970

-259.894

519.788

ismi_resistance

random

6

530.333

546.697

-259.166

518.333

1.455

3

0.693

ismi_discrimation

null

3

557.896

566.078

-275.948

551.896

ismi_discrimation

random

6

556.517

572.882

-272.259

544.517

7.379

3

0.061

sss_affective

null

3

581.489

589.671

-287.744

575.489

sss_affective

random

6

581.905

598.269

-284.952

569.905

5.584

3

0.134

sss_behavior

null

3

600.993

609.175

-297.496

594.993

sss_behavior

random

6

601.915

618.280

-294.958

589.915

5.078

3

0.166

sss_cognitive

null

3

593.117

601.299

-293.559

587.117

sss_cognitive

random

6

591.294

607.658

-289.647

579.294

7.823

3

0.050

sss

null

3

813.274

821.457

-403.637

807.274

sss

random

6

812.632

828.997

-400.316

800.632

6.642

3

0.084

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

37

3.11 ± 1.21

37

3.16 ± 1.21

0.848

-0.055

recovery_stage_a

2nd

20

3.27 ± 1.19

-0.163

19

3.49 ± 1.19

-0.335

0.559

-0.226

recovery_stage_b

1st

37

17.95 ± 2.67

37

18.08 ± 2.67

0.828

-0.066

recovery_stage_b

2nd

20

17.56 ± 2.58

0.187

19

18.58 ± 2.58

-0.243

0.222

-0.496

ras_confidence

1st

37

29.89 ± 4.99

37

30.95 ± 4.99

0.367

-0.395

ras_confidence

2nd

20

30.21 ± 4.38

-0.119

19

31.56 ± 4.35

-0.231

0.335

-0.507

ras_willingness

1st

37

11.92 ± 1.99

37

12.35 ± 1.99

0.354

-0.413

ras_willingness

2nd

20

11.29 ± 1.74

0.603

19

12.17 ± 1.73

0.174

0.116

-0.842

ras_goal

1st

37

17.49 ± 3.14

37

17.65 ± 3.14

0.825

-0.089

ras_goal

2nd

20

16.57 ± 2.81

0.503

19

18.22 ± 2.79

-0.316

0.069

-0.908

ras_reliance

1st

37

12.97 ± 2.73

37

13.38 ± 2.73

0.525

-0.306

ras_reliance

2nd

20

13.43 ± 2.34

-0.342

19

14.46 ± 2.32

-0.819

0.168

-0.783

ras_domination

1st

37

10.51 ± 2.23

37

9.46 ± 2.23

0.045

0.668

ras_domination

2nd

20

9.88 ± 2.11

0.401

19

10.26 ± 2.11

-0.505

0.581

-0.237

symptom

1st

37

31.24 ± 9.78

37

29.03 ± 9.78

0.333

0.583

symptom

2nd

20

31.30 ± 8.01

-0.015

19

28.42 ± 7.90

0.160

0.260

0.758

slof_work

1st

37

22.68 ± 4.94

37

22.92 ± 4.94

0.833

-0.122

slof_work

2nd

20

21.95 ± 4.07

0.363

19

21.60 ± 4.02

0.661

0.787

0.176

slof_relationship

1st

37

25.51 ± 5.97

37

26.14 ± 5.97

0.655

-0.213

slof_relationship

2nd

20

24.46 ± 5.13

0.361

19

25.68 ± 5.07

0.154

0.455

-0.419

satisfaction

1st

37

19.22 ± 6.93

37

22.32 ± 6.93

0.057

-0.802

satisfaction

2nd

20

19.96 ± 6.15

-0.193

19

21.82 ± 6.10

0.131

0.348

-0.478

mhc_emotional

1st

37

10.70 ± 3.80

37

11.70 ± 3.80

0.261

-0.570

mhc_emotional

2nd

20

11.19 ± 3.22

-0.276

19

11.02 ± 3.18

0.388

0.872

0.095

mhc_social

1st

37

15.16 ± 5.66

37

14.57 ± 5.66

0.652

0.202

mhc_social

2nd

20

16.25 ± 4.94

-0.367

19

14.11 ± 4.89

0.155

0.178

0.723

mhc_psychological

1st

37

21.76 ± 6.38

37

22.81 ± 6.38

0.479

-0.316

mhc_psychological

2nd

20

22.40 ± 5.57

-0.193

19

21.75 ± 5.52

0.318

0.714

0.195

resilisnce

1st

37

16.32 ± 4.34

37

16.92 ± 4.34

0.557

-0.253

resilisnce

2nd

20

16.49 ± 3.82

-0.068

19

17.44 ± 3.79

-0.223

0.433

-0.407

social_provision

1st

37

13.30 ± 3.03

37

14.16 ± 3.03

0.222

-0.470

social_provision

2nd

20

12.36 ± 2.75

0.510

19

14.09 ± 2.73

0.040

0.051

-0.940

els_value_living

1st

37

16.65 ± 2.90

37

17.92 ± 2.90

0.063

-0.869

els_value_living

2nd

20

16.92 ± 2.51

-0.189

19

17.99 ± 2.48

-0.048

0.186

-0.729

els_life_fulfill

1st

37

11.81 ± 3.09

37

13.84 ± 3.09

0.006

-1.274

els_life_fulfill

2nd

20

12.73 ± 2.69

-0.576

19

13.83 ± 2.66

0.006

0.201

-0.692

els

1st

37

28.46 ± 5.38

37

31.76 ± 5.38

0.010

-1.321

els

2nd

20

29.63 ± 4.56

-0.467

19

31.83 ± 4.51

-0.030

0.132

-0.884

social_connect

1st

37

27.95 ± 9.48

37

26.24 ± 9.48

0.442

0.463

social_connect

2nd

20

28.70 ± 7.76

-0.206

19

26.07 ± 7.65

0.047

0.288

0.716

shs_agency

1st

37

13.84 ± 4.94

37

15.22 ± 4.94

0.234

-0.547

shs_agency

2nd

20

14.13 ± 4.29

-0.115

19

15.92 ± 4.25

-0.280

0.193

-0.712

shs_pathway

1st

37

16.11 ± 3.96

37

17.14 ± 3.96

0.268

-0.535

shs_pathway

2nd

20

16.48 ± 3.39

-0.194

19

17.08 ± 3.36

0.026

0.577

-0.315

shs

1st

37

29.95 ± 8.40

37

32.35 ± 8.40

0.222

-0.600

shs

2nd

20

30.61 ± 7.17

-0.165

19

33.02 ± 7.10

-0.167

0.294

-0.602

esteem

1st

37

12.86 ± 1.42

37

12.41 ± 1.42

0.168

0.377

esteem

2nd

20

13.02 ± 1.42

-0.127

19

12.79 ± 1.41

-0.314

0.610

0.190

mlq_search

1st

37

14.84 ± 3.36

37

14.97 ± 3.36

0.863

-0.061

mlq_search

2nd

20

14.44 ± 3.12

0.179

19

14.96 ± 3.10

0.005

0.604

-0.235

mlq_presence

1st

37

13.41 ± 4.02

37

13.57 ± 4.02

0.863

-0.067

mlq_presence

2nd

20

13.33 ± 3.64

0.033

19

13.68 ± 3.62

-0.046

0.762

-0.146

mlq

1st

37

28.24 ± 6.68

37

28.54 ± 6.68

0.849

-0.072

mlq

2nd

20

27.77 ± 6.10

0.114

19

28.63 ± 6.06

-0.021

0.660

-0.207

empower

1st

37

19.08 ± 3.99

37

20.00 ± 3.99

0.325

-0.488

empower

2nd

20

18.83 ± 3.40

0.133

19

19.32 ± 3.36

0.363

0.655

-0.257

ismi_resistance

1st

37

14.32 ± 2.54

37

15.03 ± 2.54

0.237

-0.375

ismi_resistance

2nd

20

14.49 ± 2.44

-0.089

19

14.82 ± 2.43

0.110

0.674

-0.176

ismi_discrimation

1st

37

12.22 ± 3.12

37

10.30 ± 3.12

0.010

1.177

ismi_discrimation

2nd

20

11.71 ± 2.72

0.312

19

10.74 ± 2.70

-0.270

0.267

0.595

sss_affective

1st

37

10.43 ± 3.66

37

9.41 ± 3.66

0.232

0.630

sss_affective

2nd

20

10.66 ± 3.08

-0.138

19

8.55 ± 3.04

0.527

0.034

1.295

sss_behavior

1st

37

10.27 ± 3.79

37

8.76 ± 3.79

0.090

0.749

sss_behavior

2nd

20

10.02 ± 3.33

0.123

19

8.07 ± 3.30

0.337

0.069

0.964

sss_cognitive

1st

37

8.59 ± 3.88

37

7.89 ± 3.88

0.438

0.428

sss_cognitive

2nd

20

9.62 ± 3.23

-0.626

19

7.11 ± 3.19

0.475

0.016

1.529

sss

1st

37

29.30 ± 10.53

37

26.05 ± 10.53

0.189

0.774

sss

2nd

20

30.37 ± 8.66

-0.257

19

23.78 ± 8.54

0.543

0.018

1.575

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(101.59) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.61)

2st

t(108.25) = 0.59, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.98)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(98.26) = 0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.37)

2st

t(108.21) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.66)

ras_confidence

1st

t(83.99) = 0.91, p = 0.367, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.36)

2st

t(108.68) = 0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.42 to 4.13)

ras_willingness

1st

t(83.53) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.35)

2st

t(108.54) = 1.59, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.98)

ras_goal

1st

t(86.30) = 0.22, p = 0.825, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.61)

2st

t(108.99) = 1.84, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.43)

ras_reliance

1st

t(81.67) = 0.64, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.67)

2st

t(107.55) = 1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.52)

ras_domination

1st

t(94.19) = -2.03, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.02)

2st

t(108.41) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.71)

symptom

1st

t(78.01) = -0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-6.75 to 2.31)

2st

t(102.22) = -1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-7.94 to 2.17)

slof_work

1st

t(78.51) = 0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.53)

2st

t(103.33) = -0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.92 to 2.22)

slof_relationship

1st

t(81.91) = 0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.38)

2st

t(107.72) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-2.01 to 4.46)

satisfaction

1st

t(85.28) = 1.93, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.09 to 6.31)

2st

t(108.92) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.04 to 5.74)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(80.70) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.76)

2st

t(106.68) = -0.16, p = 0.872, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.20 to 1.87)

mhc_social

1st

t(83.36) = -0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.21 to 2.02)

2st

t(108.48) = -1.36, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-5.25 to 0.99)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(83.47) = 0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.89 to 4.00)

2st

t(108.51) = -0.37, p = 0.714, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.17 to 2.87)

resilisnce

1st

t(84.43) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.60)

2st

t(108.78) = 0.79, p = 0.433, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.46 to 3.37)

social_provision

1st

t(87.97) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.26)

2st

t(108.97) = 1.97, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.01 to 3.47)

els_value_living

1st

t(82.55) = 1.88, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.07 to 2.61)

2st

t(108.11) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.65)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(83.06) = 2.82, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.46)

2st

t(108.35) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.80)

els

1st

t(80.80) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.32, 95% CI (0.81 to 5.79)

2st

t(106.79) = 1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.68 to 5.09)

social_connect

1st

t(77.99) = -0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-6.09 to 2.68)

2st

t(102.18) = -1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-7.53 to 2.26)

shs_agency

1st

t(82.80) = 1.20, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.66)

2st

t(108.24) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.92 to 4.50)

shs_pathway

1st

t(81.68) = 1.12, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.80 to 2.86)

2st

t(107.56) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.75)

shs

1st

t(81.35) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-1.48 to 6.29)

2st

t(107.30) = 1.06, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-2.12 to 6.94)

esteem

1st

t(104.13) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.20)

2st

t(108.41) = -0.51, p = 0.610, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.67)

mlq_search

1st

t(90.88) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.69)

2st

t(108.72) = 0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.49)

mlq_presence

1st

t(87.60) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.02)

2st

t(108.98) = 0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.66)

mlq

1st

t(88.69) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.79 to 3.38)

2st

t(108.92) = 0.44, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.00 to 4.72)

empower

1st

t(81.14) = 0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.76)

2st

t(107.11) = 0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.63)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(96.26) = 1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.88)

2st

t(108.27) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.87)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(83.41) = -2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-3.36 to -0.48)

2st

t(108.49) = -1.12, p = 0.267, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.75)

sss_affective

1st

t(80.03) = -1.21, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.67)

2st

t(105.88) = -2.15, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 1.29, 95% CI (-4.06 to -0.17)

sss_behavior

1st

t(83.90) = -1.72, p = 0.090, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.27 to 0.24)

2st

t(108.65) = -1.83, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 0.96, 95% CI (-4.05 to 0.16)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(79.21) = -0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.09)

2st

t(104.65) = -2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.53, 95% CI (-4.55 to -0.47)

sss

1st

t(78.30) = -1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-8.12 to 1.63)

2st

t(102.89) = -2.39, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.57, 95% CI (-12.06 to -1.13)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(53.82) = 1.12, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(51.34) = 0.80, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.74)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.99) = 0.73, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.31)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.75) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.48)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(44.21) = 1.01, p = 0.636, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.72)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.79) = 2.59, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.93)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(48.70) = 1.65, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.95) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.06 to 1.85)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.20) = -2.07, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-2.60 to -0.03)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.92) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.32 to 1.41)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.67) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.96 to 1.94)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.30) = -1.22, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.44)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.66) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.42)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.72) = -1.01, p = 0.636, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.18 to 1.06)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(43.22) = 0.71, p = 0.963, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.02)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(45.11) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.08)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(42.25) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.00)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.51) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.00)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.35) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.67)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.94) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.55 to 2.20)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(42.37) = 0.89, p = 0.761, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.31)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.80) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.63) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.89 to 3.23)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(56.05) = 1.06, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.11)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(46.74) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.36)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.91) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.63)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(45.51) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.68)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.52) = -1.15, p = 0.516, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.52)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(50.01) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.94)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.69) = 0.86, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.48)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.96) = -1.66, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.95) = -1.07, p = 0.579, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.60)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.55) = -1.49, p = 0.287, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.28)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(40.10) = -1.70, p = 0.193, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.98 to 0.43)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(52.74) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(50.43) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.84)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.63) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.97)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.41) = -1.96, p = 0.113, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.02)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.77) = -1.65, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.20)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.51) = 1.11, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(47.97) = -1.34, p = 0.375, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.32)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.78) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.34 to 2.45)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.01) = -1.17, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.53)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.63) = -1.17, p = 0.498, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.77)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.27) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.64 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.05) = 0.89, p = 0.754, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.58)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.33) = 1.19, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.91)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.38) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.71)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.85) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.62)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.62) = -1.68, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.07 to 0.19)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.93) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.18)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.18) = 1.87, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.90)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.10) = 1.51, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.73)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.77) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.08)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(42.05) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.86)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.52) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.57)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.36) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.84 to 3.16)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(54.82) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.87)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(46.14) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.95)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.43) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.40)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.99) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.01 to 2.06)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.26) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.93)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(49.19) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.29)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.35) = -1.01, p = 0.632, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.73) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.25)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.59) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.34) = 2.01, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.06)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.92) = 0.83, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.71)

Plot

Clinical significance